and many more benefits!

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Hide Tags

Show Tags

19 Dec 2003, 07:05

3

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

52%(01:33) correct 48%(01:44) wrong based on 288 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing corporate staffs will bolster corporate profits and the national economy. The remaining employees will, by necessity, operate more efficiently and work additional overtime, in the absence of now-underutilized personnel. This increase in national productivity will cause new positions to spring up with the healthier economy, providing new openings for those who were made jobless.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the economist's prediction above?

(A) If employees work longer hours, the additional hours will not be as productive as the regular hours these same employees have already worked.

(B) Most corporations are already at the minimum number of employees needed to effectively maintain their operations.

(C) Some economists predict that the national economy will substantially improve in the next two years even without drastic reductions in payroll costs.

(D) If corporations reduce the number of employees, the average number of employees per company will decrease.

(E) Many of the new positions in a restructured economy would be lower-paying than those lost during the restructuring.

Show Tags

19 Dec 2003, 07:55

will go with B
A) additional hrs will not be 'as productive', but surely will increase the productive hrs. author also confers this..
B)if most corporations are working with their minimum required workforce..if they lay-off, they will be compromising with the productivity.
C)out of scope
D)who cares about this consideration?
E)no mention of the wage range or anything. out of scope

Show Tags

19 Dec 2003, 12:59

2

Official explanation:

The conclusion in this argument is in the first sentence: reducing employees will increase profits and improve the economy in general. The author then explains how this will happen. Choice (B) undermines this line of thinking by pointing out that what the author suggests is wrong.

Show Tags

19 Dec 2003, 13:53

Geethu wrote:

Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing corporate staffs will bolster corporate profits and the national economy. The remaining employees will, by necessity, operate more efficiently and work additional overtime, in the absence of now-underutilized personnel. This increase in national productivity will cause new positions to spring up with the healthier economy, providing new openings for those who were made jobless.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the economist's prediction above?

(A) If employees work longer hours, the additional hours will not be as productive as the regular hours these same employees have already worked.

(B) Most corporations are already at the minimum number of employees needed to effectively maintain their operations.

(C) Some economists predict that the national economy will substantially improve in the next two years even without drastic reductions in payroll costs.

(D) If corporations reduce the number of employees, the average number of employees per company will decrease.

(E) Many of the new positions in a restructured economy would be lower-paying than those lost during the restructuring.

B is best.

if they are already at their minimum, they wont be able to cut costs by a reduction in the workforce.

Show Tags

(A) If employees work longer hours, the additional hours will not be as productive as the regular hours these same employees have already worked.

How does this not cast a doubt on the conclusion. The additional hours won't be as productive as they could have been. But there will be an increase in productivity no matter how small. That's one part. But not to mention our labour force is also getting downsized. Can't this mean that resultant productivity is getting reduced. Wouldn't then the choice be a classic weakener.

Show Tags

(A) If employees work longer hours, the additional hours will not be as productive as the regular hours these same employees have already worked.

How does this not cast a doubt on the conclusion. The additional hours won't be as productive as they could have been. But there will be an increase in productivity no matter how small. That's one part. But not to mention our labour force is also getting downsized. Can't this mean that resultant productivity is getting reduced. Wouldn't then the choice be a classic weakener.

Please help. Also provide a reason why B is better than A

The wording of A is not as clear as it could be. So, we have to carefully look at both A and the argument to see why A does not really weaken the argument.

The argument states the following as fact:

The remaining employees will, by necessity, operate more efficiently

In a well written Weaken question, the answer choices will not make statements that conflict with the supporting facts presented in the passage. However, they may seem to. Answer choices that seem to make statements that contradict the statements made in the passage are trap choices that seem to be weakeners but do not truly weaken the argument.

Now, let's consider choice A.

(A) If employees work longer hours, the additional hours will not be as productive as the regular hours these same employees have already worked.

Hmm. This choice seems to contradict the statement made in the passage. It seems to indicate that the remaining employees will be less productive rather than more productive if some employees are laid off. It doesn't really though. A is a trap choice.

Choice A is actually not a comparison of the productivity of employees before and after the layoffs. It is only a comparison between the productivity of employees during regular hours and the productivity of employees during overtime hours.

The passage makes clear that the employees will work more efficiently if some are laid off. All A indicates is that the remaining employees wouldn't work as productively during overtime hours as they would during regular hours. It could still be the case that they would work more efficiently during regular hour AND during overtime hours than they would without the layoffs. So, the truth is that A does not weaken the argument at all.

Now let's consider B.

(B) Most corporations are already at the minimum number of employees needed to effectively maintain their operations.

While the structure of the passage is a little weak, the first sentence of the passage seems to be the conclusion. If the first sentence is the conclusion, then B weakens the conclusion, because B indicates that, even if the remaining employees were to work more efficiently, corporations simply won't be able to operate effectively if they lay off employees, and so drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing corporate staffs would not bolster corporate profits and the national economy but, rather, result in a reduction of corporate profits.